45% of the adults that were polled just after the Sandusky thing happened believe that Joe Paterno partook in raping children. If that was your father/husband wouldn't you do everything in your power to clear his name?

Really? I've never heard any inclination from anyone, anywhere that Paterno was a pedaphile too. Did you get that from some PSU jargon trying to prove that the rest of the world is irrationally hating PSU?

I'm not going to get into it with you Troy, because I know exactly where your beliefs are, and that's fine. You can believe what you will. Members of a group called "Framing Joe Paterno" had a survey put together, hired an outside research group to conduct the survey and here's the results:

For some reason 45% stuck in my head. In the poll it's 28%. I think the 45% was based on the 55% that answered False to the statement of "Joe Paterno was accused of molesting children." where as the other 45% either didn't know or answered true.

If it were up to me, I would just let the whole ordeal die. The damage is done and there's not much they can do to restore Paterno's name, but I'm saying as a Son or Wife to Joe, I can understand why they'd want his name cleared. I'm sure you could put yourself in their shoes for a minute and understand why they want what they want... or maybe you can't, and that's fine.

If nothing else, Clemente's report is a must-read if the goal is to educate people as to the insidious nature of the acquaintance "nice-guy" offender.

The whole report (and admittedly, I've gotten as far as the opening section of Dr. Berlin's report) destroys Freeh, and then Freeh destroyed himself in his statement he released obviously without reading the Paterno document, committing a lie in it (on Freeh's changed story of Paterno's availability vs the July 2012 Freeh press conference and report). Destroys Freeh's conspiracy theory of a coverup as absurd. (Well, so did the John Ziegler youtube video, and likely far less cost). Shows that Freeh didn't bother with experts either on sex offenses or the law (state and federal). What the report doesn't do, and cannot do, is answer all of the questions of what went on - the pending trials of Curley, Schultz and Spanier will do that. I suspect the small facts will not be able to be ignored at that point - such as Schultz and Courtney (Penn State's then outside counsel) going to Centre County CYS in 2001 - that are inconvenient to the Freeh/media narrative.

This report did change some minds - Phil Knight of Nike for example, who had issued a statement last July without having read the Freeh report critical of Paterno issued a statement today reversing himself. And it seems LeVar Arrington is on board at last, perhaps joining the impending lawsuit (separate from the Corbett one).

Got to hear Jay Paterno on the Herd this morning mention Penn State-Altoona. For some reason, hearing my hometown campus (where I spent two years) mentioned on national radio in connection to this story kind of tore at me.

tifosi77 wrote:Got to hear Jay Paterno on the Herd this morning mention Penn State-Altoona. For some reason, hearing my hometown campus (where I spent two years) mentioned on national radio in connection to this story kind of tore at me.